Yes Virginia There Is A Sewer Plan

Okay, so it looks like we will have a fix for our sewer capacity issues in the very near future. For those of you not aware, our sewer treatment plant has been operating near capacity for some time and that is on the good days. On the bad days, when it rains heavily, it pushes our plant to capacity.

Our Town Supervisor, Keith Langley has made correcting this problem a high priority. When he took office there was already a plan that had been in the works to hook up to The Troy sewer district. Additionally, there was a bond for improvements to the water district and the sewer district. Before moving ahead the question was raised is the current plan in the best interest of East Greenbush residents. If we hook up a bypass to the Troy waste treatment plant what would the future hold for rate payers in East Greenbush, and how much capacity will be set aside for East Greenbush development?

To answer these questions the Supervisor and the Town Engineer, Rich Benko, have been working with, the firms of Chazen Engineering and Delaware Engineering to research two different scenarios:

Continue with the previous concept of establishing a bypass to the Troy waste treatment plant.

Expand the East Greenbush waste treatment plant to double its current capacity.

The cost, immediate and future, and the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario are part of the analysis. Thankfully, the analysis is done and the public will be presented with a full report by the two firms on December 20, 2012 at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall. Last month at the Town Board Meeting a resolution was passed authorizing the Town to enter into a bond agreement for up $14,000,000. As a result of this resolution many have (incorrectly) surmised that it is a done deal, they believe the town intends to scrap the idea of a bypass to Troy and proceed with expanding the current facility. This puts those that claim it is a done deal in a can’t lose position. If after the presentation, the Town Board decides to continue with the bypass option, they can pat themselves on the back and claim that it was a good thing they got involved. If on the other hand the Town Board decides to expand the plant they can say “see, we told you so”.

Now, if those that are against the idea of expanding the plant want to test the waters and see if the rest of the town agrees with them, there is a little known procedure called a Permissive Referendum that allows them to petition and have the question placed on the ballot. The time is short to file the petitions, 30 days from enactment. So when the Board passed the resolution last month the clock started to tic. Now those that see it all as one big conspiracy or “done deal” are claiming foul once again, stating that the informational meeting was purposely scheduled so that it was after the filing date for the Permissive Referendum petitions. The problem with this argument is that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

The question with the Permissive Referendum is whether to bond up to 14 million dollars (please pay attention to the “up to” many are tossing that figure around like it is a final figure, it is not. It is a ceiling.) The informational meeting is about which two options or maybe even a hybrid option is the best way to go. There is no requirement that those seeking to file a petition have to wait on an informational meeting. Additionally, there are mechanisms that allow a permissive referendum to be shelved if the question becomes moot. So if you want to do the leg work, and take it from me you would knock on a lot of doors to get the required signatures, then by all means do it but don’t get all exercised over the scheduling like there is some big conspiracy because in this instance you have all the power (if enough people agree with you) regardless of when the informational meeting is scheduled.

So we have an informational meeting led by engineers, we have options and we have everything in place no matter which option we choose. This sounds like a good thing to me. I am curious on how it sounds to you.

Ed Gilbert

13 Responses

Ed, thank you for your candor, I appreciate it. I’m not sure which way is best for the town, and the people living in the town. I have to say this though that sometimes the way things are done in town hall is what causes all of this conspiracy stuff to spring up, I do wish that things were a little more in the open.

Ed – How about a little wager? If the town chooses to fix the problem itself you buy me lunch; if they don’t I’ll buy you lunch. We could use a good chat anyway. I’m not one of those people who opposes the town board all the time. In fact I often support them. But as long as the county is run by republicans and the town by democrats there isn’t enough trust to go with the county option. Even if consolidation of services would better protect the beleagured taxpayers of EG. Politics will trump economics, it always does in Rensselaer County.

And by the way, signatures on a petition for a permissive referendum must be those of people who oppose the bond issue. The town board ran out the clock before presenting the options so your arguments about time and the permissive referendum are disingenuous. I’m not walking the neighborhoods on a ‘what if’ because unlike the board I haven’t made up my mind. If the information session proves the town option is wrong I would be willing to walk for signatures but if it proves that the town is the right option than I wouldn’t even sign a petition and I would shoo anyone who brought a petition to my house off my doorstep.

Okay Jack your on either way we get to have lunch and chat so it’s a win win and this way we don’t fight over who picks up the check. I disagree about your characterization of my stance on the referendum as disingenuous and look forward to discussing it with you over lunch.

Ed, can you explain, since you seem to have inside information unavailable to the rest of the general public, why we sunk so many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars into the county option when it was a bad option? If all that money, engineering and political decision making was wrong how can we be certain all this money, engineering and political decision making will be right?

Can you explain why and how, after so many very real and very hurtful examples of our town board not being fully open and honest with taxpayers they suddenly are now on this issue?

I am sure you are familar with the term “the appearance of impropriety”. Can you deny that the full set of facts and the timing certainly give the town board’s approach that appearance?

Why are you reverting to attack those of us doing nothing more basic than asking logical, simple questions? How has it come to pass that a person who has been an outspoken, even sarcastic and caustic past critic of the East Greenbush town board is now, apparently, their public positive mouth piece? The only definable change I can identify is your appointment to the CFAC and as Deputy Supervisor. Is it possible that your appointment to Deputy Supervisor gives you a different perspective?

And lastly, might you use your now considerable political influence to convince Supervisor Langley and the town board to create a financial recovery plan and to share that with taxpayers? If you do…thank you very much.

Wow Ray you certainly have a lot of questions. let’s see what I can do to answer them.

1. Why have we “so many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars into the county option when it was a bad option?”

Two things first who said it was a bad option ? we will find out on Thursday the pro’s and con’s of each option. Second the money hundreds of thousand spent includes many repairs to the current system and two new water storage tanks.

2.”Can you explain why and how, after so many very real and very hurtful examples of our town board not being fully open and honest with taxpayers they suddenly are now on this issue?”

You’re asking me to speak for the Board and to accept your basic premise. even if I do accept your premise I cannot speak for the Board. That said I think it is fairly obvious to everyone that the current Board has had one significant change in recent history, the addition of Keith as Supervisor. In my humble opinion that is the main reason for many of the positive changes happening in the town.

3.”I am sure you are familar with the term “the appearance of impropriety”. Can you deny that the full set of facts and the timing certainly give the town board’s approach that appearance? ”

Appearance is in the eye of the beholder Ray I guess I can see where you would think that way. If we are talking about the timing of the informational meeting you should understand that it is not just the Boards schedule that had to be dealt with but that of the two engineering firms and the Town Engineer. Also the analysis had to be completed first THEN the meeting scheduled. Jack has pointed out that until the meeting is over he is not sure which option is best for the town so he would not be inclined to gather the signatures for a Referendum and I understand that. But others are against the additional funding no matter what those folks should have been knocking on doors.

4. “Why are you reverting to attack those of us doing nothing more basic than asking logical, simple questions?”

Ray I’m not attacking you or any of the others I apologize if you feel that way. I do think your perspective is skewed at times and when I disagree with you I will let you know.

5. “How has it come to pass that a person who has been an outspoken, even sarcastic and caustic past critic of the East Greenbush town board is now, apparently, their public positive mouth piece?”

See question # 2 things have changed

6.’Is it possible that your appointment to Deputy Supervisor gives you a different perspective?”

I think my perspective has changed a little. From watching Keith I now realize how difficult it is to deal with with the day to day issues and navigate the political realm at the same time. As I talk with people outside my comfort zone I gain new perspectives as well. I consider that a good thing.

7. “might you use your now considerable political influence to convince Supervisor Langley and the town board to create a financial recovery plan and to share that with taxpayers?”

My “considerable political influence”? I think you might be overstating things. That said I wonder what you envision a financial recovery plan would look like. To me I think it is already done in this years budget there is a line item for paying down the debt.

Okay, Done, I hope I have answered your questions. What is interesting I think is all of the information I have shared is readily available or discernible. It doesn’t take any “inside information unavailable to the general public” to answer. So let me ask you a question why do you consistently ask questions in this manner? Can you simply ask a question without intimating that others are in someway trying to keep information from you that you’re entitled to.

Ed – Paying down the debt is not a financial recovery plan although it is a very good thing. A true financial recovery plan would start with measureable goals and objectives. For example, we could propose that we reduce the size of town government by 10% over three years and reduce town taxes by 15% over five years. Then it would detail the steps needed to get there; a hiring freeze, a cap on overtime by department, a 10-15 year plan for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all town vehicles, an inventory of town assets to see if anything can be profitably sold, consolidation of services (dispatch, wastewater treatment, etc), a workload analysis to see what jobs are essential and where we can either cut jobs or make full-time jobs part-time to save on benefits, and so on.

The advantages of such a plan are that the discussion about drafting it would help clarify our direction and it would stop the micro-management that is killing us slowly. Take the two DPW workers who were hired a few months ago. With a hiring freeze in place those hires don’t happen because it is recognized that in the big picture – junk bond status, major debt – we can’t afford them. In the absence of such a plan the discussion focused on the current state of DPW and, may I say, certain political considerations. If you polled town residents as to whether they would rather have a 5% increase in DPW services or lower taxes guess how they would vote. The most important thing about a true financial recovery plan is that it would instill discipline in our financial dealings.

Thanks Jack for the incisive statement defining a financial recovery plan. As we all can see, it’s not rocket science. It’s just basic administrative common sense. And the absence of one since the OSC recommendation in 2008 to put one in place should raise some obvious questions about the presence of “common sense” in the administrations which have been in charge since then.

I’m waiting to see if anyone gets an assignment to draft one. I personally know that several knowledgeable people have volunteered – only to be rejected. And I know that these matters were worked on by the original Finance Committee which was disbanded by the Board.

Somehow Jack, the Town must still operate. Reducing the workforce will only satisfy the taxpayer until such time as they need that service, and there is no one to respond to their emergency. At that point, people will call for the needed tax increase to restore service(s).
Not that I am disagreeing with you, just pointing out the almost guaranteed complaint from the opposition.

Fred – You make a good point. I think a workload analysis is needed so that we can pinpoint essential services and ensure that they are adequately provided. But it might also show where we can trim without hurting anyone. I don’t want to leave the wrong impression: I think most town employees do a great job but just like all of us with our household budgets our town has to learn to do more with less. An essential part of that is careful planning and rigorous accounting.

I would love to have any update on efforts to connect Hampton Manor to the town’s water system. I know studies have been done, plans made, and nothing seems to have happened. Questions to town hall have always gone unanswered in the past; maybe things are different now.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.